ciso_assistant_api_policies_impact_graph_retrieveRetrieve the impact graph for policies in CISO Assistant to visualize how policy changes affect related controls and compliance objects.
API endpoint that allows applied controls to be viewed or edited.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, yet the description claims the endpoint allows objects to be 'edited', implying a write capability that contradicts the annotation. It also gives no information about what the returned graph contains or how it is shaped.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence, so nothing is bloated, but the one sentence carries no useful information and is not front-loaded with any specifics about policies or graph data.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-arg retrieve with no output schema, the description is the only place an agent can learn what comes back, and it says nothing about the impact graph structure or its semantics. The definition is effectively opaque.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies; the description neither helps nor harms here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says only that the endpoint 'allows applied controls to be viewed or edited', which neither mentions policies nor the impact graph the tool is named for. It is generic Django-REST boilerplate that could describe dozens of siblings, so an agent cannot tell what this retrieve actually returns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No indication of when to call this versus the many sibling impact/graph endpoints (api_policies_impact_effort_retrieve, api_policies_control_impact_retrieve, api_policies_sunburst_data_retrieve, api_policies_retrieve). No prerequisites, no scope conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.